Scotland’s strategic location, shipbuilding capacity, and skilled workforce must be central to the UK’s defence industrial strategy, according to Labour MP Graeme Downie, who on Wednesday called for the national armaments director to prioritise new frigates and investment in air defence.

Speaking during a Commons debate on the remit of the recently appointed National Armaments Director, Downie described the current defence moment as one of urgency and opportunity, aligning with the Prime Minister’s attendance at the NATO summit.

“This is not all about numbers on a spreadsheet or a press release,” he said. “The national armaments director will allow the UK to focus on how defence money is being spent to increase the lethality of our armed forces and ensure that the deterrent effect of the combined UK armed forces is sufficient to prevent a war that no one in this Chamber wants to see.”

Downie welcomed the new director’s mission to instil strategic coherence and efficiency into UK procurement, but warned that progress must be swift: “Only by doing so can we make sure our adversaries know that we are committed to our own defence.”

He singled out Rosyth as crucial to that effort, calling for urgent consideration of additional Type 31 frigates beyond the current five being built for the Royal Navy at Babcock’s facility in his Dunfermline and Dollar constituency.

“The Type 31 frigates being built at the Rosyth dockyard would seem to fit the bill,” he said, referencing the Strategic Defence Review’s call for “an ‘always on’ supply line for shipbuilding” and a “more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet.”

HMS Venturer, the lead ship of the Type 31 class, was recently floated off, and Downie praised the workforce: “I will take this opportunity to once again thank the workforce at Rosyth for the incredible contribution they make to our nation’s defence in the construction of the Type 31, as well as the other incredible work they do for us and our American allies.”

He asked whether the new armaments director would “urgently consider the need for more Type 31 frigates to reflect the flexibility of this platform as well as the lower cost and faster production that the incredible workforce at Rosyth have been able to deliver.”

Beyond shipbuilding, Downie pressed the government on air defence, citing both parliamentary debates and recent public discussions. “This has been a key theme of the ongoing Sky News podcast ‘The Wargame’, created by a range of defence experts and advisers,” he said, suggesting the future air dominance system and the forthcoming Type 83 destroyer programme could be key to “countering the emerging threat from hypersonic missiles.”

He urged the Ministry of Defence to provide updates on both projects and outline “how the armaments director is likely to prioritise this important work.”

Downie also made the case for a broader industrial strategy: one that uses defence investment to drive prosperity across the UK. “We are strengthening the UK’s industrial base to better deter our adversaries, and to make the UK secure at home and strong abroad,” he said. “That means engaging all parts of society and business, including the growing network of high-tech small and medium-sized enterprises and skilled manufacturers in my constituency, in Fife, and across Scotland and the rest of the UK.”

He pointed to the proposed defence growth fund recently trailed by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, calling it an “exciting prospect” and arguing that it could help institutions like Fife Council and Fife College “play a much larger role in delivering on defence and providing the skills and training that our young people need and deserve.”

But his comments also took aim at the Scottish Government, particularly the SNP’s record on defence policy and skills. “We have seen the total failure of the SNP Scottish Government on devolved matters such as skills and infrastructure spending,” he said. “We have the farcical position that senior people in the SNP say that it is party policy that public money should not be spent on military equipment.”

He condemned what he described as the SNP’s “preposterous” stipulation that medical aid to Ukraine not be used on military casualties. “That position puts Scotland’s security at risk, and reduces opportunities for young people in my constituency.”

In closing, Downie reiterated his support for the government’s creation of the national armaments director role and urged further acceleration of reforms: “I just hope that we can accelerate down that path as much as possible, to ensure that we deal with those threats, as the British public expect us to.”

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

18 COMMENTS

  1. I feel the Government would consider a few more T31 over additional T26 purely on cost grounds. The T31s do appear to be a solid base to expand weaponry beyond current plans and a stretched variant (similar to Sheffield Class destroyers) might be a viable option in the future. Considering the amount of new infrastructure in the Scottish yards, it would be wise to have some builds in the pipeline once the 13 new ships are completed. Building both T26 and T31 for export would be one possible route to maintain excellence and skills.

    • A stretched variant is the Babcock proposal for the Type 83 destroyers. I believe it’s being called the Arrowhead 160.

      • Makes sense. I wonder how many crew will be on these vessels in twenty years as manned functions are replaced by automated systems. Demanning will become an increasing trend in all three services as the recruitment and retention of crews becomes increasingly difficult.

      • leh, I thought that the stretched Babcock T31 was for the Multi Role Naval Platform T32, she would have a mission bay much like the T26, a multi mission flex deck under the flight deck and a stern ramp.

        As for an Arrowhead 160 can can find no information for this designation.

        • I can’t post links in this CS, but go to the Naval News article on the Type 83 and FADS, it’s mentioned there. NN usually have slightly better info than NL or UKDJ as they are in direct contact with reps from the companies.

      • That ‘AH140’ comment is really interesting and I thought a lot about it at the time.
        It’s clear that a simple 20m extension to Type 31 isn’t possible, but what about repeating the AH140 process but using an air defence destroyer as a parent design? We are deepening ties with the Japanese and they have several destroyer classes that might be suitable, for example.

        • I’ve seen your Shipbucket sketches over on the SP forum for the Type 83 destroyer, and whilst I appreciate the idea, I don’t think that’s what Babcock is getting at. They’ve long suggested that AH140 could be used in the AAW role, and I expect that lengthening the hull will be used to accommodate more systems and weaponry. I don’t think we’ll see any use of a second foreign design in the AH140 family.

          • Oh, you read SP as well?
            AH140 is already big and stable enough for a pretty good radar setup if we wanted an AAW frigate.
            But I’ve also played with Shipbucket and the statistics for trying to add 20m of length into the AH140 design, and it’s just not designed for that sort of length/beam ratio. There are a few destroyers that are similar, but they will have a structure designed for it.
            I wouldn’t mind using the T31 method for T83 at all, it worked wonders in a quick programme for T31 and it cuts down on early design costs which caused grief for T26 and the QEs.

    • Yes but you’re talking Hadrians Wall era stuff !

      “You can take my life but not my freedom”.

      Men in skirts always a bit worrying.

  2. I’ve been thumping the tub on continuous production of second-tier escorts for years and over the last few years production at Rosyth in particular. It would cost us £360m a year, maybe less in 2025 terms, to produce a fully equipped T31 every 15 months. So forget thinking about another batch of 3 or 5. Just keep production going indefinitely, occasionally changing the specification to fill new needs: AAW, ASW, mothership, patrol frigate, etc.

    Those we can’t use in the Navy, we sell or even mothball as a reserve. We can’t accept Treasury reluctance any more.

  3. Nice to have extra subs and the unmanned fleet; still need a lot more supports for the surface fleet… and yes, must have some form of continuous production lines that have an option to increase production rates quickly!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here